Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:25:43 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> Cc: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.ORG>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rand() is broken Message-ID: <20030202182543.GC66318@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030202182009.GA66318@nagual.pp.ru> References: <20030202124258.GA63153@nagual.pp.ru> <200302021730.h12HUmaX048964@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20030202182009.GA66318@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 21:20:09 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 17:30:48 +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > > > Why not? Arc4 is a) deterministic and b) good for all bits. > > If you mean arc4random() function - not, because it use true randomness, > if you mean RC4 algorithm, probably yes, but we should compare its > distribution with our current variant and be sure that speed is > acceptable. What form RC4 distribution have? BTW, if we ever think about replacing our current variant with such complex and unknown (at least to me) thing as RC4-based PseudoRNG, I simpatize more to Knuth variant mentioned by David Schultz: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/programs/rng.c RC4 is good for hashing existen randomness, but is it good as PseudoRNG? -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030202182543.GC66318>